On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 11:59 AM Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2019/03/20 19:42, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > >> I mean, yes, I agree, kernel bug bisection won't be perfect. But do > >> you see anything actionable here? > > Allow users to manually tell bisection range when > automatic bisection found a wrong commit. > > Also, allow users to specify reproducer program > when automatic bisection found a wrong commit. > > Yes, this is anti automation. But since automation can't become perfect, > I'm suggesting manual adjustment. Even if we involve manual adjustment, > the syzbot's plenty CPU resources for building/testing kernels is highly > appreciated (compared to doing manual bisection by building/testing kernels > on personal PC environments). FTR: provided an extended answer here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/syzkaller-bugs/1BSkmb_fawo/DOcDxv_KAgAJ > > I see the larger long term bisection quality improvement (for syzbot > > and for everybody else) in doing some actual testing for each kernel > > commit before it's being merged into any kernel tree, so that we have > > less of these a single program triggers 3 different bugs, stray > > unrelated bugs, broken release boots, etc. I don't see how reliable > > bisection is possible without that. > > > > syzbot currently cannot test kernels with custom patches (unless "#syz test:" requests). > Are you saying that syzbot will become be able to test kernels with custom patches? I mean if we start improving kernel quality over time so that we have less of these a single program triggers 3 different bugs, stray unrelated bugs, broken release boots, etc, it will improve bisection quality for everybody (beside being hugely useful in itself).
